Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

We'll switch your business
to Led lighting for Free*

High Court says no to the compo shagger

By johnboy - 30 October 2013 57

News is just coming in that the Canberra public servant who tried to claim workers comp for injuries incurred while wrecking a hotel room with rough trade picked up in Nowra (and rough trade comes little rougher) has been ruled against by the High Court of Australia.

Her heroic efforts will, however, have implications for everyone else injured out of hours while on work trips.

The High Court’s thoughts on the matter are available:

The High Court allowed Comcare’s appeal. A majority of the High Court held that in order for an injury sustained in an interval or interlude during an overall period of work to be in the course of an employee’s employment, the circumstances in which the employee was injured must be connected to an inducement or encouragement by the employer. If the employee is injured whilst engaged in an activity at a certain place, that connection does not exist merely because of an inducement or encouragement to be at that place. When the circumstances of an injury involve the employee engaging in an activity at the time of the injury, the relevant question is: did the employer induce or encourage the employee to engage in that activity? On the facts of the respondent’s case, the majority held that the answer to that question was ‘no’.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
57 Responses to
High Court says no to the compo shagger
Robertson 3:55 pm 30 Oct 13

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

I mean, if your boss says, “Go down the road and get some staples, we’ve run out”, and you go down the road, trip and break your leg, then clearly you can malinger for months with odd and unresolvable complaints about mysterious backpains, and you’ll get compo. Because you were doing something your work induced you to do. And you’re immoral and keen to scrounge.

But going for coffee? Work never told you to do that.

KB1971 3:53 pm 30 Oct 13

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

We are not covered outside of work on a normal work day so no. This has been the case since the howard era when he took away workers comp for travelling to & from work.

On this matter, let me ask the nay-sayers this: If I am away (directed to be by work) should I not be covered by workers comp?

Ghettosmurf87 3:51 pm 30 Oct 13

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

Makes sense to me, coffee is definitely not a requirement

Robertson 3:50 pm 30 Oct 13

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

Why would anybody expect to be able to claim workers’ compo when they are neither doing work nor even present at their workplace?

Public servants truly are a species apart, aren’t they…

chewy14 3:46 pm 30 Oct 13

rosscoact said :

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

Agreed. I thought she shouldn’t have gotten compo because either her or her partner used the light fitting for a purpose it was clearly not designed for. But the words in the article would seem to be more far reaching than that.

rosscoact 3:34 pm 30 Oct 13

Sounds like an interesting precedent created here.

Does this mean that if a public servant goes across the road to get a coffee and they trip and break a leg on the way there or back they are not covered because they are not induced or encouraged to get a coffee?

Robertson 3:29 pm 30 Oct 13

OK, so the first problem with this case has been solved: No, you can’t behave like a f&^%$wit and expect the taxpayer to fund you.

Part 2 is as yet unresolved: an individual has spent years causing escalating expense to the taxpayer with a completely immoral attempt to carve out some public funds, and yet this person is *still* being cloaked in anonymity. Why? Who else gets anonymity in this way? We’ve been taken for a ride, and now we are entitled to know the name of the %#$^wit who took us on it.

MERC600 3:13 pm 30 Oct 13

poetix said :

460cixy said :

Does anyone know if this chicks hot?

The light fitting was.

Ah .. nice one

HiddenDragon 3:09 pm 30 Oct 13

So glad we no longer have appeals to the Privy Council.

The essence of the decision sounds reasonable and sensible to me, and for those who seem to think there should be no practical limit on the taxpayers’ liability to people who grace the public sector with their presence, reflect, for a moment, on the fact that had this case gone the other way, it would have provided a mightily attractive reason for a truly draconian, root and branch review of the Comcare system.

thebrownstreak69 3:08 pm 30 Oct 13

460cixy said :

Does anyone know if this chicks hot?

Not after she was smashed in the face with a light fitting.

poetix 2:46 pm 30 Oct 13

460cixy said :

Does anyone know if this chicks hot?

The light fitting was.

dph 2:42 pm 30 Oct 13

460cixy said :

Does anyone know if this chicks hot?

This.

It’s the only thing I’ve wanted to know or cared about since this story broke.

DJ Mac 2:29 pm 30 Oct 13

Just out of curiosity I wonder how the court would have ruled if a light fitting had fallen on someone’s head while they were sleeping in a hotel on a work trip?

460cixy 1:42 pm 30 Oct 13

Does anyone know if this chicks hot?

Chop71 11:50 am 30 Oct 13

It’s a sad day for all office shaggers 🙁

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site